It is incredibly biased: on one hand, they describe the Greeks as horribly homosexual and the Jews as not; on the other, they don't mention circumcision or licking the blood of newly circumcised infants at all:

And the Jews cite other Jews regarding how horrible the Seleucids were, forgetting to mentioning that the Seleucids had been very tolerant and even protective of their religious institutions until at some point. And it is murky at best what changed at that point; some (seemingly Jews from what I can quickly skim) claim that it was greed and theft from the Seleucids and the Hellenized Jews and a cover-up and the like, and other things indicate revolts, murders and assassinations. And even the Jews admit themselves that they forcibly circumcised and mutilated children, and admit that they banished and admit indirectly that they murdered at least some of those that did not circumcise their children and/or were seen as Hellenized. And given how ludicrously dishonest and willing to sacrifice the truth Jews generally are, it would not be the slightest bit surprising if the Jews were incredibly much more wretched and evil in the given events than claimed by them. And the mutilation itself is wretched in and of itself.

@notenoughstuff Well I think that article is written for Jews, so it is kind of biased. And that writer is kind of creeping around difficult details, like the possibility of Jews who were "bad." These are rabbis, not Jews on CNN. It's like, you wouldn't expect a bunch of preachers to come together and say that their denomination is "bad."

"Yup, we're Baptist preachers and there are a lot of baptists who suck."

I think part of the problem with naming the Jew is that a whole lot of americans don't know any Jews, except maybe their doctors. Lol.

But the most important part, HOW DID THEY GET 200 RABBIS to agree on ANYTHING? They are probably still arguing about what the exact wording of the article should have been. Lol. Only some people will understand.